Anne Peters explains:
Many in congress see [military assistance] as a card to be played with Abbas because it is a scarce resource that is in high demand by the West Bank government. Yet this is a false lead. Trying to leverage U.S. security assistance is a self-defeating proposition, as David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy argued in congress yesterday. The health of the Palestinian security forces is too wound up with both U.S. interests in the two-state solution and IDF interest in reducing its number of occupational forces. Manipulating these resources — at least by threatening to decrease them– is to shoot oneself in the leg. Attacking the aid to the PA might satisfy angry members of congress, but would only undermine its own agenda.
Geoffrey Aronson makes the same point:
[Israelis] understand that these Palestinian security forces are doing stuff that saves Israel the energy of deploying more aggressively throughout certain areas in the West Bank — without precluding the Israeli forces from operating or restricting their operational freedom. They still go anywhere and everywhere at will, without coordination with the Palestinians if they so choose. So these Palestinian forces are really seen as a strategic adjunct to the Israeli security forces. I think this energy in Congress for cutting off aid is directed not specifically at the security aid, but more broadly at punishing the PA for having a mind of its own politically.
The Dish 